The Instigator
AlexanderOc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
grass
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Anything Is Possible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 65754
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

AlexanderOc

Pro

First round is acceptance.

I will be trying to support, with full BoP, that any event is possible.

Possible shall be defined as such:
Capable of happening, as dictated by universal laws.

8,000 character limit.

3 days to post argument.

Have fun!
grass

Con

hmmmmm. Well, this is interesting. I believe that Christ can gave you the power to help you get through any circumstance. ( Philippians 4:13 ) But I think you are saying that any event is possible. per say flying pigs?? And that I don't think is possible. I might find it believable that a weird creature pig hybrid born with wings is possible. But making a pig fly by will are it happening by chance are not that good. I don't think a piece of paper can turn into a Hamburger that starts riots and wars and such. I will end my turn right now. I am sorry if I am not clear enough. Thank you

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
AlexanderOc

Pro

I welcome my opponent grass to this debate. Thank you for accepting and good luck.

I. Construct

I have a single syllogism to present as my center argument. It is as follows:

P1. A situation is possible if it complies with universal law
P2. All situations can comply with a universal law
C. All situations are possible

P1 is essentially our agreed upon definition, so it stands.

Premise 2 is where my argument stems from. It requires a bit of elaboration before the full meaning can be understood.

To start, let's look at human sensory perception. We only know what we can sense through our variety of senses. With what we sense, we find patterns and write tangible laws upon these patterns. These universal laws, like gravitation and the laws of force, are simply patterns we observed. Objects of greater mass tended to be attracted to other objects with a greater force than less massive objects. This has always been the case, and it is assumed that it will always be the case, unless it is disproven, but I'll get into that later.

So, now with that under our belt, let's delve into my point. Human senses are, of course, imperfect. They cannot sense many things, like radiation. So one can assume there are other such things in the universe that the human sensory system cannot percieve. Things which might, possibly have an affect on our universe without us knowing.

Basically, unsensible laws. These laws would be unknown to us, we would therefore not be basing what we assume is possible on them. To clarify, allow me to use an example provided by Con. Flying pigs. A natural pig, that flies. The laws of our universe dictate this as impossible, or do they? The laws we can sense say that the atoms that make up the animal we know as a pig, a long with the form, disable it from being capable of flying.

However

Since there may possibly be universal laws that we are incapable of knowing, these laws could very well allow a pig to fly. The only reason we declare that it can't is that we have yet to see it, and science dictates it not possible. Science itself claims that it never proves anything to a 100% degree. Evidence only supports a fact, never proves it. This is why anything like a sturdy law or theory is subject to change upon further evidence showing the past data obsolete.

Just as science can never prove something, it can just as well never disprove anything. It can show evidence against a possibility, but future evidence could possibly show the past negative-evidence obsolete.

Anyway, back to the pig example. There could, possibly, be a law humans can't sense that allows pigs to fly. This law could override the evidence that supports pigs being unable to fly. The same could be said for the transforming paper. Science shows that paper and hamburgers have different atoms, therefore a paper should not be able to transform into a humburger. Again, this is what we have determined based on evidence we can sense. A paper could very well have some ability to transform into a burger by nature of an impercievable law, it just simply hasn't yet.

II. Closing

I very well understand this argument is convoluted and confusing to some. If clarification is needed, I can provide it. To those of you who can grasp what I'm getting at, thank you.

Now, I pass this debate on to Con for a hopefully correctly interpreted refutation.
grass

Con

*clears throat*
Very good. You basically almost convinced me. But as the con, and some things I believe, I will try no to believe you. But I must throw out that I believe God made the universal laws, and there might be some that man have not discovered or can sense. So this will be hard for me to dis-prove. But what do you mean by "any thing is possible" ??????? Did you mean that since some things can fly, and have atoms, mean that pigs have a chance at flying, or at least a 0.000000001% because they have atoms?? If so, I must say I don't know if I can dis-prove, or just have enough information on this subject. But maybe I can. How would this pig fly?? Or for something different, how would the sun make clone of its self by another star coming out of the sun. According to what I understand about your theory this could be possible. But how???? Also like you said there might some things we don't understand. So I don't know if I can prove this wrong. But I also don't know if you can prove your theory right. But I also don't know if I can prove mine either. But you might have a greater chance then me at wining. So I end this with a question (i hope I am not mean about this, im sorry if I was/am) Question: How can you theory be proven?? can it???
Debate Round No. 2
AlexanderOc

Pro

I. Rebuttal

My opponent posed a question last round, as to whether or not I can prove my theory. But before I get into that I want to fix some misconceptions Con had with my argument. I'm not saying that since things that can fly have atoms and so do pigs therefore pigs can fly. I'm saying that pigs might be able to fly due to some universal law we don't know.

Next, he asked how this could happen. To be honest, I have no idea. That is however, irrelevant. I only have to demonstrate possibility, not explain the process in which the event could take place.

Now, he goes on to ask me how I can prove this, or whether he can disprove it. The fact is I don't need to prove it. The whole point of the argument is that no event can be proven, only supported with evidence. What I provided with my argument was a theory, and as long as the theory has the smallest amount of evidence attatched to it, then the possibility is there.
Said evidence is essentially the explanation itself. There could be unsensible universal laws, I don't have to prove there are, since the resolution is based on possibility, not likeliness.

II. Closing

With that, I pass it back to Con for further refutations. Hopefully I've clarified enough.

grass

Con

Okay. I am almost running out of ways to prove this wrong. So I am gonna try this approach. I asked you a question last round, and I don't know what to try to prove or un-prove at this point, so I ask, may you please ask me a question or give me a scenario to try to prove or un-prove. Thank you :)

(if you don't want to that is okay, you don't need to)

(also I am sorry if I came on to strong, or was mean about that, please forgive if I was??)

Thank you :)
Debate Round No. 3
AlexanderOc

Pro

I. Extension

My opponent is not attempting to falsify my argument at this point. If he choses do so, then so be it.
He says he is having trouble trying to prove this wrong, which makes sense considering the theory was built around the idea of doubt, not falsification.

He did however request me to ask him a question, or give him a scenario that he can use to prove/disprove my theory. I honestly have no idea what question would be appropriate. It seems counter-intuitive to ask a question about my theory to another person. I may be able to provide a a scenario though.

It is considered, according to current evidence and logic, that a dead person cannot be revived into a living person. Now, there is the possibility that there is a universal law that allows dead people to be revived. We have not recorded a long dead person suddenly coming back to life, therefore we consider it impossible. It may happen tomorrow, due to a law that humans have yet to account for.
grass

Con

hmmmmmmmm. Well I for one Believe that Jesus came back from the dead. And you might say that he has powers that humans have not really studied or understand. So I might have to believe you about the powers humans don't understand. But I don't believe that anything weird could happen. (i believe that God can do any thing with his power, so this kinda gives you all the right to win.) But the universe by itself, no extra power from God, just some other law we have not discovered yet, I don't think it could do anything like bring a person back from the dead. I think you could bring the cells back to life maybe, and maybe all the parts of the body, but the person that once liked in the body and used it is lost. (in a body that's been once dead.) If anything like breaking the laws of reality, I would assume that some evil mad scientist made a extra-planetary machine that opens the layers of the cosmos. Other then that or God, I would not believe it could happen. So yes, maybe their is a good chance the laws of the universe will be broken (witch I believe it will *Revelation* ) but not by itself or by accident.
Debate Round No. 4
AlexanderOc

Pro

I. Final Extension

It seems that Con is inserting his own personal religious beliefs into his argument instead of countering my argument, so it still stands.
God is not scientifically supported and should therefore not be considered support for an argument.
My opponent not believing my argument is irrelevant. I believe it works, but that doesn't support my case for it.

Other than that, my theory goes unrefuted by Con. He has failed to negate my BoP by falsifying the theory and therefore I have fulfilled my BoP.

Good debate Con!



(On a side note, while I understand that voters may have their own refutations to my theory, please vote on the debate between me and grass. If you feel as if you can hard counter this argument, please message me or challenge me, don't explain it in your RFD as reason for voting against me. If you have reason contained within this debate, then by all means bring it up.)
grass

Con

Yes good debate. It looks like you win. sorry if I was mean. Thanks. Good debate. :)
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
@NoMagic
The point is to prove that it CAN, not that it DOES. The point is to show possibility, not absolutes.
Universal law is a term I give to the laws of the universe that dictate how it operates. If a universal law dictates God does not exist, then there may be another law dictating that he can. The fact that we don't know what the universal laws are is exactly what creates the doubt and possibility.
Posted by NoMagic 2 years ago
NoMagic
Think I would like to take the Con position on this one. What is "universal law?" "All situation CAN comply with universal law." Can doesn't equal does. Seems like I need to know what "universal law" is before I can think of a thing that may reside outside of it. What if "universal law" dictates a god cannot exist? Then god isn't possible. Seems we need to know what "universal law" needs to be understood before the claim can be evaluated.
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
@FreedomBeforeEquality

Understand that I'm not trying to prove that any specific situations will happen, or is even likely to. I'm simply presenting a logical argrument that shows doubt, and with doubt, there is possibility.

The theory by nature doesn't make sense to try and prove. The idea is that there COULD be unsensible laws, not that there are. If I were saying there were definitely such laws, then I would be expected to prove that. The theory being more or less likely is irrelevant, as long as it is not 100% disproven, then the possibility is still there
Posted by grass 2 years ago
grass
I think that he is trying to say there might be a universal law that does things that seem impossible to us that you cant prove. pre-say how can I prove that colors are really there, or that proof is really what you need to so called "prove something".
Posted by FreedomBeforeEquality 2 years ago
FreedomBeforeEquality
@ Round 3

So you can't prove it, and also cannot support with evidence (because there is no evidence that we can pick up ... theres only your assumption that there must be some evidence that we can't pick up still left out there ... not that any of that evidence supports specifically pigs flying). What do you really have then?
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
@Commodebator, I think you're missing the point of my argument.

All those logically impossible scenarios are only percieved to be impossible due to our application of logic. Logic says you can't shut a rotating door, but how can one say there is no impercievable logic that says you can?

Maybe, for example, there is a universal law that allows all rotating doors to be shut. Only because we haven't seen one shut yet doesn't mean that it can't happen.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Well. . .

Without reading the entire debate, I can tell this might be a win for con. I mean if anything is possible, then that implies that the things that are logically impossible are possible, which is false. . .

Like, shutting a rotating door

or Rotating a door with hinges or

if someone's maximum limit (regardless of physical improvement) is to pick up 50 pounds, then the person picking up 51 pounds without any support is impossible

You see, con can give certain scenarios which make it impossible to disprove logically. However, this is a fun debate, and I want to see what pro can do
Posted by AlexanderOc 2 years ago
AlexanderOc
I don't blame you. I would have the same rection.
Posted by TheSymbiote 2 years ago
TheSymbiote
i am too lazy to read that lol
No votes have been placed for this debate.